ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

October 9, 2003

LAJOYYA THOMAS

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 02-1347

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO. CR 99-2158,

CR 99-2555, CR 99-3351, CR 00-535, HONORABLE JOHN B. PLEGGE, JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

Per Curiam

Appellant was convicted of the following offenses: four counts of second-degree forgery and two counts of misdemeanor theft of property in case no. CR 99-2158; one count of fraudulent use of a credit card in case no. CR 99-2555; one count of second-degree forgery in case no. CR 99-3351; and one count each of financial-identity fraud, second-degree forgery, and first-degree forgery in case no. CR 00-535. He was sentenced to a total of twenty-five years' imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. See Thomas v. State, CA CR 00-1042 (Ark. App. Jan. 16, 2002). Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim P. 37 and later an amendment to his petition. The circuit court denied the petition and its amendment without conducting a hearing. From that order comes this appeal.

Appellant now asserts that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a hearing on his petition and that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective. We cannot reach the merits of hisclaims because he has failed to include a proper abstract as required by Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5) (2002). See Hubbard v. State, 334 Ark. 321, 324, 973 S.W.2d 804, 805 (1998). "In making a determination on a claim of ineffectiveness, the totality of the evidence before the factfinder must be considered." Noel v. State, 342 Ark. 35, 38, 26 S.W.3d 123, 125 (2000). Because appellant has failed to abstract his trials, we cannot evaluate his claims according to the "cause and prejudice" test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Hubbard, supra. Therefore, appellant has fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted abstract, Addendum, and brief to conform to Rule 4-2(a)(5) and (7). See Campbell v. State, 349 Ark. 111, 112, 76 S.W.3d 271, 272 (2002). Mere modifications of the original brief will not be accepted. Id. According to Rule 4-2(b)(3), if appellant fails to file a complying abstract, Addendum and brief within the prescribed time, the judgment or decree may be affirmed for noncompliance with the Rule. Id.

Rebriefing ordered.